North Korea's Nuclear Threat

I think we are pretty much at the boy who cried wolf stage now. Seriously I don't think anyone can keep track of how many times N. Korea has threatened to attack. The only new thing is the word Nuclear now. Thus this is almost certainly nothing.

Assuming that Mr. Kim is a mad international-political genius and not genuinely insane, the whole reason he probably wanted nuclear weapons was to use them as a propaganda weapon and to make it far too costly for anyone to invade North Korea to remove him Saddam Hussein style.

Also you forgot the American subs with nukes and a couple hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles that are probably sitting somewhere in range of N. Korea. Also why are 4 Raptors worth of note on their own while you say nothing of the South Korean military?

IDK In the report I read it only described American firepower, probably because we don't yet have accurate reports of South Korean forces yet.  That, and Raptors are the best fighters in the Air Force, and they're stealth, so that means we're serious.

Xer0 \^/

First, the U.N. is not going to make a difference in this. They will take the side of South Korea and most likely put on sanctions, but I doubt they will enforce any blockades or send troops. Even if they do, it will be a token force which will do nothing more than show that the U.N. has troops.

America and South Korea are far more serious, but I think that South Korea does need to be careful when moving close to the border and from here on we'll probably see the U.S. both keep South Korea away from this border and place enough assets nearby to keep North Korea from wanting to jump all in, not because an aircraft carrier is difficult to sink (keep in mind the number of large warships Britain lost to Argentina), but because such an act would be seen as a miniature Pearl Harbor.

North Korea is not willing to engage in direct warfare for two reasons. The first is that their smallest functioning nuclear arsenal does not fit on their largest reliable missile. This is mostly an issue due to the likelihood of accidentally detonating such a weapon on their own territory. The second is that without a larger force, such as China, backing them up, they understand from historical experience that they will be fighting a losing battle. When America engaged Korean forces directly during the Korean War, their army fell back quickly and with heavy losses. It was Chinese intervention which allowed them to recover lost ground. China is not only unwilling to enter the fight on their behalf, but, because of the economic advantages they gain from dealing with the U.S., they are more than willing to help quiet North Korea or simply let us have at them. I could see China potentially intervening on our behalf in order to keep the U.S. from having a military foothold closer to their territory.

All in all, it is a lot of threatening with very little real potential for execution. Even if it did come to violence, the scale of the warfare would be conventional. Forces should be prepared for the worst, but that is true in any case.

My thoughts.

Raptors do have a thinner cross-section than average, that is true. Even still, they are contracted to be fielded as our standard naval combat aircraft. I feel the only reason it is pointed out is that someone got sight of it while the U.S. prefers not to show all of their cards. A common issue with freedom of the press and military actions.

Well the South Korean forces don't really change day to day (when their frigates don't get sunk anyways), so I suppose that is why, but they do have way more than 30,000 troops and a decent size frigate and destroyer fleet. As for the Raptors, while they are good air supremacy fighters, they might not be that necessary as I bet F-15s are better than what N. Korea has, and B2s will likely be more useful in a war with North Korea as far as stealth is concerned.

1. Agreed but I don't know why you mentioned it as no one mentioned the U.N.

2. Indeed, though the main reason that South Korea has to be careful is because Seoul is in artillery range of North Korea. Also while if a Nimitz class carrier was hit in any way would be expensive, I do not think it is accurate to compare them to the not even 20,000 ton ships Britain calls aircraft carriers or the 4000 ton destroyers Britain actually lost to Argentina. Granted a direct nuke hit will sink it, though considering that North Korea's nukes are likely no stronger than the Hiroshima bomb, there is some evidence that even a near miss might fail to sink a ship of that displacement (potentially 90,000+ tons). Of course that is just speculation on my part.

3. Agreed, and I doubt China is willing to get them out of trouble if they start something. Actually maybe just period.

Naval aircraft? They are only operated by the Air Force. The Navy mainly uses F-18s and plans to use the F-35 JSF as its stealth fighter.

Well, I mention the U.N. because just about any sanctions placed on North Korea by the U.S. or E.U. will probably be funneled through them. And I was recently reading an article on the subject which noted the U.N., so I had them on my mind.

I understand that South Korea has its issues with proximity, but it's also an issue that they don't always seem to be wary of the tensions between the two. I've seen their charted maneuvers and they really play it close. As for the aircraft carrier, I understand that it can not be directly compared to the British vessels earlier mentioned, but it is a surface vessel now putting itself near a potential enemy. Long range artillery or saturation air power would, even for our naval forces, be a problem we would rather not face. All that aside, my point was that even if they simply attacked it, the ramifications would go far beyond what I feel they are prepared for.

And sorry about that last bit, I was thinking of something else. Even still, as cool as Raptors are, I'm not sure where they stand as far as measuring the severity of the situation. They are not the most well-rounded fighters we have and have recently cost us a great deal to overhaul.

Point remains the same, all of what I said adds up to the same opening line GoaFan77 used.

North Korea is simply passing a bit of gas, like usual.

They make a big stink, but nothing will come of it.

And as in all polite company, it is best to just ignore them. The stink will go away, until their next brain-fart.

On North Korea; Same shit, different year.

On U.N.; A bunch of hot air. Their sanctions have yet to initiate compliance for anyone they have put them on.

See a similarity? Neither is worth the time or the wasted effort of worrying about. 

Being a fascist-like state, North Korea requires a continual "enemy figure" to keep the population scared and willing to "sacrifice individual privilege for the good of their country". Without that constant threat of "those people over there will come and get you", the government would have a hard time keeping everyone in line. When the US does these military exercises, they make it easy for Kim's boys to create that enemy figure, and provoke them to be more aggressive (even though N. Korea has nowhere near the industrial or technological base required to actually fight a large country like the US, and they probably know it). In essence, North Korea is sort of the forum troll of the world- if you react to it, it gets bolder, and if you don't it eventually loses interest.

I'm going to write down this quote somewhere lol.

North Korea is just giving lots of rhetoric. What is really going on is that they are preparing themselves for the worst possibility. Documents were recently released following a freedom of information request in the US showing that back in the day Nixon put several nuclear bombers on standby to bomb their military installations. Of course that could have seriously escalated, so Nixon eventually decided to take that option off the table. But should such a threat happen again, North Korea wants to be prepared. I highly doubt that they would be prepared to make the first move in this, it would be suicidal and they know this.

Knowing the above, another very important question poses itself. Why then are the media reports written in a way as if they were not aware of this? The simple reason is that the media need to sell their advertising space in order to stay in business, and advertisers often demand that the news stories be reported in a way to their liking. Business links with South Korea and Japan are plenty, and these two countries are particularly threatened by the North Korean communist ways - which are themselves a threat to the enterprises that buy a lot of the advertising space. So when you read the descriptions of major political news in the media, keep in mind that the reports you are getting are most likely not coming from a source that is free of political bias.

When Hitler began rattling sabers everyone shrugged it off and dismissed it. It was just rhetoric... or something that was only for internal consumption. But he was deadly serious. When dealing with the threat of nuclear war I wonder if anyone has the luxury of waiting.

Hitler also had to capacity (or was building the capacity) to win any war in Europe at the time he made that rhetoric. Also that was pre-nuclear weapons, so the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't apply. Only someone who was truly insane and wanted his country to be destroyed would use a nuke in combat again, and I really don't think North Korea falls under that quite yet.

Very good analogy!

All i have to say UnitedStates and SouthKorea are Democratic countries, thier citicens are free. NorthKorea is Communist country.  Which history shows in the event NorthKorea attacks the US even with a nuke, i belive there are anti nukelear defences along the cost which would shoot down alot of them.

also you must concider that China is allied with NorthKorea, which is a bit of a big deal especially since we have been spending more money on roads than we have on protecting our country

(I am american)

Not to start anything, but China is still allied with North Korea to a fair degree, but has backed away from military support. They tried to intervene on our behalf when Kim Jong Il started up the first time. China has grown closer to us and has made a lot of money off of us. They don't care if North Korea and South Korea fight, but as long as we're involved, they want it to remain peaceful. Since the days of Nixon, China has become quite friendly to us politically.

That Hitler-was-doing-the-same Bush rethoric to justify invading Iraq is tiring in 2010.

Well, the USA seemed like a pretty fascist state needing not only 1 enemy figure, but an entire "axis of evil" of 3 enemy figures. Or at least that's the image their administration at the time wanted to paint.

Don't imagine things have changed, impulse. Although Obama said he would set a deadline and get our boys out, he's pretty much just let things lie. He's no better than Bush as far as getting things done, he just benefits from not getting the blame of starting them. I imagine this administration will be known for having little activity on a positive front. Even the party as a whole is concerned about that, but the Democrats have never managed to keep things together for long. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are lying, greedy hosebags. I'm a fan of neither.

Yeah, unfortunately i gotta agree. Obama didn't do the things he said he would upon taking office, like shutting down guantanamo and such. Apparently he found that all the power moves he inherited from the previous administration are just great.  But the thing is, now with the economy in turmoil, and with dire uncertainties about its future, I dont know if the usa can play yet another war game. I thought they were already stretched thin in resources.

another fact in politics !!PARTYS SUCK LET PEOPLE VOTE FOR MORE THAN JUST 2 PEOPLE!!

It makes absolutely no sence to devide ourselves like we have devided we fall....

I doubt we could go to war effectively, but North Korea probably feels that like with Iraq, the government wouldn't survive the conflict. They're worried for their own skins.

*Sigh*

Someone had to bring politics into this, even though North Korea has been a problem zone for 60 years and no one president's policy has really changed America's position on it. I hope this thread doesn't get locked.

The U.S. military is stretched, but it still has the power to destroy any single target and most countries in the world by conventional means. The problem is occupying the said country once you've gotten rid of the previous government. And if we ever did get into a situation where that would be necessary, I think the South Koreans would be the main ones doing the occupying work (it tends to work easier when you have guys that can speak the language and who are family with some of the people). The U.S. would mainly focus on securing the nukes and destroying North Korea's military utterly.

The general american outlook, we kick all out door no matter what

I like it!!!

I don't think it's possible to say how the North Korean populace would react to the sudden removal of their government: the country is locked down to a degree never before seen in history, and xenophobic propaganda is everywhere. I have two friends who were originally from South Korea, and they tell me that the prevailing opinion there as of a few years ago was that people just want the two countries reunited as peacefully as possible, and are sick and tired of the bellicosity they have become stuck in the middle of. What would happen with the public up North, however, is anybody's guess, considering that the rest of the world doesn't really know what the propaganda apparatus is telling them or how much of it they believe. I would hope that if the existing government were forcibly removed the South would be placed in charge of reconstruction, but I would be unsurprised if China started making inroads, or for that matter if the US tried to do everything itself...